Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I do not recognise what my hon. Friend just outlined. I said that I would set out to Parliament our intended direction of travel and what we wanted to do before the summer recess, and we did that with the Command Paper. We did have an ambition to legislate this autumn, and I was determined to do that, but we have to ensure that we are delivering and focusing on the work that we have seen over the summer and autumn in the ongoing conversations with victims groups and veterans groups, the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland. This is a complex area, and we have to make sure that when we deliver legislation on this, it is legislation that works for the people of Northern Ireland and for those who served in Northern Ireland as well.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

No one believes you any more.

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

That is very much at the heart of the discussions that Lord Frost is continuing to have with the EU. The hon. Lady highlights a clear problem. The EU needs to come to the table with proposals to resolve these issues so that people can have confidence in having access to medicines, rather than having that access prohibited by the way in which the EU wants to implement the protocol.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Secretary of State keeps threatening to invoke article 16, but he never quite gets round to doing it, does he? There is a pattern of behaviour here: the Secretary of State talks a great game but he never plays one. Where is your Bill, Brandon?

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend is right that we have not yet triggered article 16. As we said, the conditions have been met, but article 16 is not the solution in and of itself; it is the start of a process. It is right that we strain every sinew to reach an agreement with the EU, because that is what gives certainty for businesses and citizens in Northern Ireland. It is a reality that if we are not able to secure an agreement with the EU, and if the EU is not able to move in a way that delivers for Northern Ireland, we do not take anything off the table.

Photographic Reconnaissance Unit: National Memorial

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I completely agree: all the air bases from which the PRU flew should be commemorated, and all the men who flew, from whatever airfield, should be commemorated if we are able to succeed in getting a memorial erected in a prominent position in the country in the coming years.

In 2019, Mr Tony Hoskins recovered Spitfire AA810—Sandy Gunn’s Spitfire—from the Norwegian mountainside where Sandy had ejected all those years ago. Tony Hoskins established the Spitfire AA810 Project to restore the plane to flight, which it is hoped will be completed by 2023. The project also established the Sandy Gunn Aerospace Careers Programme, which was launched at Cranfield University on 27 September 2019—what would have been Sandy Gunn’s 100th birthday.

In 2019, the Spitfire AA810 Project began its campaign to establish a national memorial to the PRU and the brave men who flew for it from wherever they were based. This year, the project established an advisory board, with representatives from industry, academia and both Houses of Parliament, to drive forward the establishment of a national memorial to the PRU. The young pilots who flew for the PRU performed their duty in highly dangerous conditions, without armour and alone. The work of the PRU and the intelligence it gathered were crucial to allied planning and strategy throughout the war. They were critical to the success of countless operations, saving the lives of thousands of servicemen in the process.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I apologise to you, Mr Davies, and to the Minister that I cannot be here for the whole debate because I am about to attend a remembrance service in the Guards’ Chapel. No disrespect is intended.

May I pay a family tribute? My late father, Reginald Francois, was on a minesweeper on D-day. There were many reasons why Operation Overlord succeeded, but one undoubtedly was the ceaseless courage of the unarmed PRU pilots who flew multiple missions to successfully reconnoitre the Normandy coast so that the allied invasion could be best planned. From the son of a D-Day veteran, I offer my hon. Friend unstinting support for his campaign, and thank him and his predecessor for having the courage to raise it in this place. We wish him Godspeed.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and that very personal family tribute. His father, like many, served in the second world war, and they were only able to do so and complete their missions because of the bravery of men like Sandy, George, and all the others who flew with the PRU, giving Allied Command the intelligence that they required to navigate their way through incredibly difficult situations. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his tribute and his contribution, and for his support for the campaign to get a national memorial established.

The PRU’s pilots and the reconnaissance aircraft in which they flew are, sadly, largely unrecognised in history. Their story, their success, and their sacrifices are, as I have said, mostly untold. Furthermore, the highly dangerous conditions in which the pilots of the PRU served meant that it experienced a tragically high death rate. Although it was a relatively small unit, the PRU suffered horrendous losses from its inception in 1939 through to the end of hostilities in the far east in 1945, with records now showing that—as I have said—its survival rate was the second lowest of any allied aerial unit during the entire war.

Some 1,287 men have so far been identified as having flown operational photo reconnaissance sorties, but only 29% of them have been confirmed as having survived the war. Even more tragically, due to the solitary nature of their work, 12% of those who flew are still missing to this day, their final resting places unknown and unrecorded. A permanent national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit would be a fitting tribute to those pilots, navigators and observers who undertook those dangerous missions in the service of our country, and would serve as a de facto headstone for those who served in the PRU but have, as yet, no known grave.

So, I come to the ask—except, exceptionally for Westminster and, I am sure, to the relief of the Minister, I make no financial ask of the Government. I simply request that the Minister meets with the campaign for the national memorial, and gives support to the efforts to establish a national memorial in an appropriate location in London: a memorial to the 1,287 men who flew for the PRU; to the 378 who did not return; to the 143 who lie with no grave; to Sandy and all those like him; and to George and the three others, the last of the few.

Tributes to Sir David Amess

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Sir David Amess was my best and oldest friend in politics, so I confess that I am hurting terribly, and I hope the House will forgive me if, because of that, my contribution this afternoon is even more incoherent than usual. I certainly cannot match those two beautiful and, if I may say so, extremely moving tributes from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I thank them.

Everything that I ever learned about how to be a constituency MP, I learned from David Amess. He sponsored me for the candidates list, and he mentored me when I arrived. Without him, I would never have become a Member of Parliament, so some might well argue that he has much to answer for.

I grew up in Basildon when David was the local MP. I grew up on a working-class council estate which even the locals nicknamed Alcatraz. David helped me to campaign in 1991 to win election to Basildon Council—quite a robust place to learn one’s trade, and once described as the only local authority in Britain where at council meetings the councillors actively heckled the public gallery. I was there. Trust me: I’m a politician.

In return, I ran David’s ground war in his iconic defence of Basildon in 1992. During that campaign, the late Paul Channon came down from Southend to help, and we were out canvassing on a council estate in Pitsea. I will never forget that. We knocked on a door, and a monster of a bloke answered it. He looked at us both, and he looked at the blue rosettes, and he said, “Conservative? Tory? You must be bloody joking, mate— I’m voting for that David Amess!” I said, “I know when I’m beat, sir. Well done.”

My partner Olivia and I were due to be on David’s table at the Southend West Conservatives’ annual dinner on the day he was murdered. But David is now our fallen comrade. He was a devoted and a loving family man, and our deepest sympathies are with his widow, Julia, and his five children, who produced the most amazingly courageous statement, the essence of which was, I think, that love must conquer hate. I am sure we all agree with that. He was an animal-lover, a patriot, a Thatcherite, a Eurosceptic, a monarchist, a staunch Roman Catholic whose faith sustained him throughout his life, a truly great friend to those in need—I can vouch for that—and a fine parliamentarian. He was probably the best potential Father of the House we will now never have.

David had a zest for life, a joie de vivre. For him the glass was never half empty; it was three quarters full. He was a doughty champion for Basildon and then for Southend. So thank you, Prime Minister—and I thank Her Majesty and the Privy Council—for making Southend a city after all. It was the right thing to do; and our apologies to Cleethorpes! While you are at it, Prime Minister, perhaps you can help Southend United: they are going through a bit of a sticky patch, and they really need all the help they can get.

You never knew what David was going to do next. That Essex “cheeky chappie” smile, that impish Amess grin, always with a hint of gentle mischief behind it. He once even persuaded His Holiness the Pope to bless a boiled sweet, as my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), will explain in a moment.

However, David also had a serious side, and it is that on which I want to focus the rest of my speech. In the last few years, he had become increasingly concerned about what he called the toxic environment in which MPs, particularly female MPs, were having to operate. He was appalled by what he called the vile misogynistic abuse that female MPs had to endure online, and he told me recently that he wanted something done about it. Three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) wrote a powerful article about this on ConservativeHome in which she quoted the following social media post:

“I want to see you, trapped in a burning car and watch as the heat from the flames melts the flesh from your face.”

I ask you, Mr Speaker, what did she ever do to deserve that? Another fallen comrade, Jo Cox, whose sister now graces this place, said that we have more in common than that which divides us, and I think she was absolutely right.

All of us, wherever we come from, came here to try to help people. We may disagree, sometimes passionately, about how best to help people, but surely we could all agree that we came here to try. For this, we are now systematically vilified day after day, and I simply say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that enough is enough. We all have one thing in common: we are legislators. So I humbly suggest that we get on and do some legislating. I suggest that if we want to ensure that our colleague did not die in vain, we all collectively pick up the baton, regardless of party, and take the forthcoming Online Safety Bill and toughen it up markedly. If I may be so presumptuous, let us put “David’s law” on to the statute book, the essence of which would be that, while people in public life must remain open to legitimate criticism, they could no longer be vilified or their families subjected to the most horrendous abuse, especially from people who hide behind a cloak of anonymity, with the connivance of the social media companies for profit. The mood I am in, I confess that I would like to drag Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter to the Bar of the House, kicking and screaming if necessary, so that they could look us all in the eye and account for their actions, or rather their inactions, which are making them even richer than they already are.

Let us also do that for all our councillors, who are sick and tired of reading on Facebook after every planning committee meeting the night before, that “it must have been a brown envelope job”. Let us do it for all those other people who hold surgeries, including our GPs who have carried on tending to the sick throughout the pandemic but who are now being vilified online, along with their loyal receptionists and staff, just for trying to do their job. If the social media companies do not want to help us to drain the Twitter swamp, let us compel them to do it by law, because they have had more than enough chances to do it voluntarily. Please bring in this Bill, Prime Minister, and if you need any assistance in toughening it up, we are called the Back Benchers of the House of Commons and we are here to help. What better way to ensure that a fine parliamentarian did not die in vain than to enshrine one of his last wishes in legislation forever, for the benefit of all those in public life?

Many Members wish to pay tribute, so I will end with this: another thing about David was his legendary timekeeping, or rather lack of it. His constituency events always ran late because he was so popular and so many people wanted to speak to him. By the end of a busy constituency Friday, of which he had many, he was sometimes running up to an hour late—he invariably overran, and this afternoon, in his honour, so have I; sorry, Mr Speaker—but what better fault to have than that wonderful trait? Among some of his closest friends, he was known affectionately as the late Sir David Amess.

Well, now he really is the late Sir David Amess. I am absolutely determined—I ask for the House’s support in this—that he will not have died in vain. He is now resting in the arms of the God he worshipped devotedly his whole life, so farewell David, my colleague, my great friend—in fact, quite simply the best bloke I ever knew. I thank the House for its indulgence.

Afghanistan

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The visions on television sets the other day very much were redolent of 1975. No matter what Secretary of State Blinken said, the parallels with the Americans’ departure from Saigon were shocking, but also very true. My point is that the way we withdraw matters almost as much as the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan—I will return to that in a moment. The chaotic, ghastly departure, the way that people were falling off aircraft in their determination to get away, and the helicopters shipping people out, say terrible things about the values that we hold and those we wish to protect. This is a shame on all of us, not just America, but also the whole of NATO and here for us in this House.

We know that US support for the military in Afghanistan had evaporated and there was pressure to leave, but there was a better way. The US non-partisan Afghanistan study group came forward and said that over the past 18 months the US had suffered no casualties at all. It had withdrawn directly from the frontline, and the same for the UK. We were giving support, help and aid to those on the frontline, including the 70,000 members of the Afghan forces who died and of whom we should be incredibly proud today.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Prime Minister reminded the House that the Afghans lost 70,000 men whom we helped to train and whom we fought alongside, even though some of them were not paid for many months because of endemic corruption in Kabul. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to imply, as some have, that they basically ran away, when for 10 years and more they had done precisely the opposite, is shameful?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

There is no question but that is an infamous statement to make. Those men and women lost their lives trying to uphold what we had brought to Afghanistan, and we should be proud of them. I say to the American President—the Government and even the Opposition leadership are perhaps reluctant to say this—that he has no right to use excuses and base them on people who have lost their lives, and done so bravely. The withdrawal of air support was critical at that moment. The moment that went, the Taliban got a green light and knew they were going to go in and that the Afghan forces could not be supported. That was a critical decision. It was done in a hurry, and it was wrong.

As I said earlier, the Afghanistan study group said that there was no need for this precipitative departure by America. It could have kept a number of forces there at a much lower cost, supporting those on the frontline, and we could have supported it in doing that. I ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, did we at any stage demand that the US Government review their decision? Did we say to them that this was wrong, or that we must find a way to support what we have started in Afghanistan? I am proud of what our troops achieved and I know they will feel deserted at this point. I did not serve in Afghanistan, but I served in Northern Ireland and I know what the feeling is. However, I say that today those who died rise in glory because they gave something to the Afghans—hope. We must find a way of ensuring that it is not dashed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Winston Churchill said:

“Wars are not won by evacuations.”—[Official Report, 4 June 1940; Vol. 361, c. 791.]

The debacle we have sadly just witnessed in Afghanistan was more akin to the fall of Saigon than the miracle of Dunkirk. There is no hiding from the fact that we have just suffered a most grievous defeat. Our 150,000 veterans fought bravely in the noble cause of a better life for the ordinary people of Afghanistan. It is not their fault. We now have 457 compelling reasons for learning from this. I support the call from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Chairman of the Defence Committee for a Franks-style inquiry to learn what went wrong.

Another war leader, Napoleon Bonaparte once said:

“The moral is to the physical as three is to one”.

When NATO needlessly withdrew key enablers on which the Afghan army still relied for protection, their morale rapidly collapsed. This was a NATO mission, which began as an article 5 request when the United States suffered a terrorist Pearl Harbor on 9/11. They asked for our help and we gave it.

Twenty years on, whether we blame President Trump for a bad deal with the Taliban or President Biden, who, remember, on 8 July told the American people,

“There’s going to be no circumstances where you see people being lifted off the roof of the embassy of the United States from Afghanistan”,

the buck stops with him—oh yes, it does. But we are not blameless in Britain either. Our own National Security Council was caught completely flatfooted, although the Defence Secretary, to his eternal credit, did, perhaps with a soldier’s instincts, appreciate what was going to happen and sought desperately to assemble a coalition of the willing among European nations, only to discover they were anything but willing to prevent what happened next.

What do these events mean not just for Afghanistan but for the security of the strait of Hormuz, the Baltic states, Ukraine or even Taiwan? NATO has been the cornerstone of our security for more than 70 years, and it has just suffered a strategic defeat for the first time in its history. I am terribly sorry, as an Atlanticist all my life, that President Biden’s deeply isolationist speech on Monday was extremely worrying. If the midterm results in the United States are more important than the security and freedom of the free world, we had better work out pretty quickly what global Britain means, because it seems that global America just fell off its horse and died.

Emergency Services Personnel: Awards for Next of Kin

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to have this Adjournment debate, although it seems to be a rather two-edged weapon tonight. I thought I was in a good mood, until I saw the time that we would have to do it, but I am not alone—I am with lots of friends—and I am particularly pleased that the Minister responding, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), is a very good friend of mine and new in the Ministry, so he is having a bit of, shall we say, battlefield inoculation.

At about 4.30 am on 7 December 1982, I helped to pull a young woman called Tina Collins out of the wreckage of a pub called the Droppin’ Well in Northern Ireland. She had recently been married to 20-year-old Clinton Collins, my company clerk, who I had promoted to lance corporal the day before. I was then a major in the Cheshire Regiment serving at Ballykelly in Ulster. To celebrate Clinton’s promotion, he had taken Tina to the Droppin’ Well for the evening, until, at about 10 past 11, a huge bomb blew the place apart. Tina and Clinton were together and she later told me that he had shielded her with his body when the explosion occurred. Maybe he did; I hope so.

Clinton was killed—I think, almost immediately—and Tina survived, although in great shock. I was the incident commander and it took us about five and a half hours to recover Tina from where she was lying, under concrete beside the still body of her husband. In all, 17 people were killed that evening and 11 of them were soldiers, six of them from my own company. What happened that night has marked me for life and I will never forget the horror of it.

Then, on 1 July 2009, the Defence Secretary announced in this place that recognised next of kin of service personnel killed on operations would qualify for a commemorative emblem called the Elizabeth Cross. Tina Collins, of course, received it, and it was my real honour to have her visit me in Parliament after I became an MP in 2010. Regimental headquarters of all regiments, particularly thinking of the Cheshire Regiment, have contacted most of the next of kin of their soldiers killed since 1948—the date from which the emblem has been awarded—and appropriate awards have been made. That emblem is made of a silver cross rather like the size of a Military Cross, which my father was awarded. When I sit in my office and look at my father’s decorations on the wall, I always think of the Elizabeth Cross as well. The emblem comes in a large form about two inches square and a miniature form. It is accompanied by a scroll signed by Her Majesty the Queen bearing the name of the person who lost their life in the service of their country.

All I can say, and the Minister will agree with me here, is that anyone I have met who has been given this badge wears it with huge pride, and I—and we all—hope it is of some, albeit limited, succour to them. But it does not make sense to me that those who protect us in non-military uniforms, such as the police, fire and ambulance services, should not have a similar arrangement for their own next of kin if they are killed in the line of duty. I think so, and so do many other colleagues in this place. To that end, I have worked alongside my right hon. Friend, and good friend, the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) to try to get support for this, and I thank him. After all, in my view, there are far too many people killed in what we might call the blue light services who leave people behind.

Even late last week, Jack Daw, a paramedic, was killed in the village of Moreton on Lugg when answering a 999 call. An object smashed through the windscreen, killed him in the passenger seat and hurt the driver. The matter is still being investigated, but the media report that it may not have been a deliberate act and was an accident. Our own Police Constable Keith Palmer, George Medal, was killed in New Palace Yard on 22 March 2017. He had a wife and children, and I think Mrs Palmer could qualify for an award.

I gather that, between 1986 and 2013, 26 firefighters were killed attending fires in the United Kingdom. Most of them, of course, had close loved ones, so how about an award similar to the Elizabeth Cross for the blue light services? By blue light services, I mean the police, fire and ambulance services in the first instance, but the award might be expanded to include the coastguard and other organisations that rescue people, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, as well as mountain and mine rescue teams. The award could be given to recognised next of kin with similar criteria to that necessary for the award of the Elizabeth Cross—in other words, their loved ones were killed in the line of duty. I suggest that, if this idea is taken up, the award should be of the same quality as the armed forces’ Elizabeth Cross, which is somewhat splendid and much prized by those who wear it. It seems that the cross—please, not a medal; a cross is so much more distinctive—would look good in silver, designed along equivalent lines to those given to the next of kin of armed forces personnel. In short, it must stand out as special, and so it should.

I have not found one Member of Parliament who has reservations about this proposal. Surely, the next of kin of blue light service personnel who die in the service of their country are just as deserving as armed forces personnel who die for the same reason. Personally, I believe that, at this time, the award might be called the Prince Philip Cross, with the permission of Her Majesty, of course. Based on what I gather about the institution of the Elizabeth Cross in 2009, it may not need legislation, but would it not be appropriate to include it in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May?

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, Mr Francois, but to speak you needed to have the permission of both the Minister and Colonel Bob—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I shall more than take the hint. I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, albeit at almost 1.30 am. I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for asking me to make a brief contribution in support of his excellent idea for a Prince Philip Cross.

I have only three brief points to make. First, as a former Minister for Veterans in the Ministry of Defence, I welcome the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), to his new appointment, in which, knowing him as I do, I am sure he will excel.

Secondly, when I was the Minister for Veterans some years ago, I worked on the evolution of the military covenant into what is now known as the armed forces covenant. Similarly, the Government are now talking about introducing a policing covenant for the wider policing family. That is a very good idea, but I have one suggestion: if we really want it to catch on in a popular sense, we should call it the coppers’ covenant. That seems to me to be the obvious name. If we want to give such a covenant a concrete form, what better way than to bring in the Prince Philip Cross, as explained excellently by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham, to honour the next of kin of those in the police service, the fire and rescue service or the ambulance service who give their lives in the line of duty?

Thirdly, as a former Minister for Veterans, I have seen for myself the great comfort that can be brought to next of kin who receive the Elizabeth Cross if their armed forces partner has given their life in the service of their country. Given that Prince Philip’s whole life was about public service, I think that, providing that the palace and, ultimately, Her Majesty the Queen approve of the concept, it would be extremely fitting to name such a cross after his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

There are always many details to work out in respect of such awards, and my right hon. and gallant Friend is more than capable of doing that with the assistance of the Government. Tonight, we need to know whether the Government are prepared to give the idea a fair wind in order to honour those who have made the ultimate sacrifice not on the battlefield but in other ways, for the service of their countrymen. I hope that that is a fitting tribute and that the Government might yet agree.

Armed Forces Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

My right hon. Friend is very knowledgeable and learned in this space. The issue is a lot more complicated than it is made out to be by a lot of people who contribute to this debate. There is no evidence, essentially, of vexatious prosecutions per se. It is the investigations that are the trouble. There are elements of this Bill that address how we investigate. There are elements not in this Bill that are being brought into the Department, such as a serious crime unit, to ensure that these things can never happen again.

Let me be clear that if we were to invent a system that essentially said, “We will not investigate”, that would be the equivalent of an amnesty, and this Government are not committed to going down that route either. This is a difficult area and it is a delicate balance, but the strategic objective has been set by the Prime Minister; it is one that I and many Members in the House have campaigned on for years, and we will deliver on it. It is a tough ask and a tough battle, but we will win it. I urge patience while we get to the end of this battle.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Minister is not the problem; the problem is the Northern Ireland Office, as everyone knows. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) chairs the veterans support group in this place; he has been followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), a previous Chairman of the Defence Committee and now Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and I am a member of the veterans support group. The Prime Minister promised 18 months ago that we would have this legislation before the next general election. Well, we have had the general election and we have had a year, so with the greatest of respect, will the Minister take back to the Northern Ireland Office the fact that our patience is now exhausted? We do not want words and we do not want to be patronised; we want a Bill. Where is it?

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and it is a fair point. However, I would just say that we have had 18 months since that election, but this challenge has existed for 40 years—for 40 years—and our predecessors have not dealt with it. It is unrealistic to expect the Northern Ireland Office and the Prime Minister to have delivered on this by now, but they have made that commitment. I would slightly push back on this idea that the Northern Ireland Secretary is the roadblock, as my right hon. Friend has put to me before. That is not my experience, and I am engaged in this every day and I think on this matter every day. That is not fact; what is fact is that this is extremely difficult, but this Government will get it over the line. I am going to make progress now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Let me begin, as a former Armed Forces Minister, by expressing my support for the Bill and what it is trying to achieve, and for the Minister who is carrying it through. Clause 8 strengthens the legislative basis of the armed forces covenant, including its two key principles of no disadvantage for the wider armed forces family and of special treatment, where appropriate, especially for those who have given the most. Those principles were articulated the Armed Forces Act 2011, but clause 8 gives them much stronger form, especially in encouraging public sector bodies such as local councils, education institutions and the NHS to adhere to them.

Clause 20 affects the ability to claim war pensions of those from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although that is important, it does little to address the burning injustice of the shameful treatment of those veterans of active service in Northern Ireland who bravely upheld the law against terrorists—both so-called loyalist and republican—for decades as part of Operation Banner. Without their courage and sacrifice, there undoubtedly would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, and we should never forget them.

The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have repeatedly promised to introduce legislation to protect those Northern Ireland veterans from vexatious and politically motivated allegations, but still, even now, not even draft legislation has been published. When he stood for the leadership of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) published an open letter in The Sun newspaper, on 11 July 2019, that included a “veterans pledge” containing three key commitments.

The first was to

“create an Office of Veterans Affairs within the Cabinet Office”.

That has been done. The second was to

“enshrine the Military Covenant into law”,

which this Bill does. The third—I quote my right hon. Friend’s pledge directly—was:

“New legislation to end repeated and vexatious investigations into historical allegations against our servicemen and women—including in Northern Ireland—to be passed”—

passed—

“before the next General Election.”

That is completely unambiguous—it could not be clearer—and the Prime Minister very publicly signed the letter himself. However, over 18 months and a general election later, where is the Bill?

My friends and I in the Veterans’ Support Group do not doubt the Prime Minister’s sincerity on this; we simply want him to keep his promise. We want action now, not words. That is because some of these men, many of whom are now in their 70s or even their 80s, are being reinvestigated for allegations in relation to which they were previously exonerated, in some cases almost 50 years ago. Some of these men have died, and others are dying, with the sword of Damocles still hanging over them and their families. Unlike some others, our service veterans have no letters of comfort, while the Northern Ireland Office, whose Bill this is supposed to be, continues endlessly to drag its feet for fear of upsetting Sinn Féin. It makes Handforth parish council look efficient.

Tonight, a former leader of the Conservative party, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and two former Armed Forces Ministers to boot, have all made the same call: bring forward the Bill. If everything we have heard this evening about honouring the covenant is true—if we mean it—the Prime Minister urgently needs to knock heads together in Whitehall to get this critical legislation on to the statute book. All we ask is that the Prime Minister fulfils his public solemn promise and thus defends those who defended us.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. The very idea that the UK armed forces should be prevented in any way from operating in any part of the United Kingdom is utterly unacceptable.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The whole point of the Northern Ireland protocol was to avoid the creation of a hard border on the island of Ireland; and yet, late last week the European Commission—in an act of stunning hypocrisy—attempted to do exactly that, affecting medicines and critical vaccines. It has blown up in the Commission’s face, but if it ever doubles down and tries it again, the President of the Commission would unquestionably have to resign. In the meantime, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster work with Mr Šefčovič in the Joint Committee to try to really rip back these problems? In particular can we narrow down the goods at risk to a very, very small number instead of, as is the case at the moment, virtually everything being treated as if it were at risk, with all the attendant bureaucracy?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned briefly in my response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the whole point of the Joint Committee is that it is there to safeguard the interests of the people of Northern Ireland; it is not there to ensure that we can somehow control the export of vaccines from Belgium and the Netherlands. That is not appropriate. His broader point is absolutely right: we do need to make sure that we work rapidly within the Joint Committee to address those issues, and, once we have done so, take a step back and look at how we can safeguard Northern Ireland’s position in the round.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Disruption to Trade

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Some of the specific aspects of the negotiation with the EU with regard to SPS matters meant that the EU was asking for dynamic alignment in specific areas, and that is not something that we can accept. However, more work can be done in order to smooth the passage of food into the European Union and vice versa.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Given that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said “No, no, no” a few moments ago, may I remind him that Margaret Thatcher once famously said that Northern Ireland was as British as Finchley? That must always remain the same. That being the case, can he reassure the House on three points?

First, if we find that the EU is responsible, perhaps even inadvertently, for some of these problems, will he raise those matters politely but firmly with Mr Šefčovič in the Joint Committee? Secondly, if, as some of my colleagues have suggested, some of these problems may be down to over-zealous interpretation by our own officials, will we stamp on that? Thirdly, as some firms in GB appear to be nervous about their legal position and are perhaps over-interpreting the situation, will the Government work very closely to consider easements to reassure them, as the excellent Shanker Singham has suggested, with my right hon. Friend’s very welcome announcement on cars being one good example?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on those three things, which are absolutely at the heart of the approach that we are taking and that we have to take. We must make sure that there is no over-zealous interpretation on the ground; we must make sure that the European Union, along with the United Kingdom, lives up to its obligations to the people of Northern Ireland; and we must work with businesses in order to remove any misunderstandings and confusion that arises by affirming—as he did, quite rightly—the integral part of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Following the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), I feel that we are having a debate about the glass being half full or half empty. It is worth reminding ourselves that we will be able to do things such as abolishing the tampon tax, which many hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches railed against, because we are leaving the EU and getting out of its jurisdiction.

This extraordinary recall of Parliament, the day before new year’s eve, in the midst of a raging pandemic, is a pivotal moment in our history. Since 31 January, we have been in limbo, outside the EU, but subject to its laws and institutions. Tomorrow marks the real departure, when we take back control of our destiny. Denial by some of the importance of sovereignty is based on confusion. Sovereignty is not the same as power. Sovereignty is the ultimate source of authority to exercise power. EU member states have given that ultimate authority to the EU. Demanding its return was a revolutionary act by the majority who voted leave in the referendum, which they then confirmed in the 2019 general election.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Briefly, is my hon. Friend aware that in a national opinion poll that was undertaken yesterday, 55% of the British public wanted MPs to vote for the deal, whereas only 15% did not?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

That revolution continues. It recalls our Glorious Revolution of 1688, when the nation broke with an attempt to align the then three kingdoms of the British Isles under James II with an existing European hegemon to create a new arrangement with the modern, free-trading Dutch, when Parliament reasserted the right of the people through the Bill of Rights to consent to its system of government. It is that right that was increasingly compromised in the EU, which attaches more importance to integration and central control than to democratic choice.

Some said that the EU would never allow the UK to leave EU control and to prosper. What the EU negotiators called “governance” became the fundamental difference of principle in the EU negotiations. The agreement may be less than many would have liked in many respects—let us remind ourselves that many of those extra barriers and checks have been imposed by the EU through its choice, not because we chose to accept them—but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who held absolutely firm on governance, insisting that the EU could only have free trade with the UK if it gave up its control over the UK. As the ERG legal advisory committee has confirmed, the agreement treats the EU and the UK as sovereign equals. I have no doubt that the EU will continue to do everything it can to assert what it intends the provisions of the agreement should mean. This is the new challenge. For two generations, our system became institutionalised by the EU, but we now have the reciprocal right to insist on our view of fair interpretation with equal vigour. We must do that, because only then can we seize the great opportunities that exist for our reborn nation.

I have a final word about Scotland. It is striking that although the Government have agreed an institutional framework for relations between Whitehall and Brussels, and even between this Parliament and the European Parliament, no such formal frameworks exist in our own country between the four Parliaments and the four Governments. Those who want to strengthen the Union, and to strengthen trust within our own Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, must address that issue with urgency. I hope, as Chair of the Liaison Committee, to help the Government do precisely that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this historic debate today. Thanks to this agreement, we will finally be leaving the European Union forever on new year’s eve, so perhaps Big Ben will bong for Brexit after all. Nigel Farage memorably said last week that “the war is over”. Well, sometimes, as you will well remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, it has felt like a war in this place. Perhaps we should now take on board the advice of the Prophet Isaiah who said:

“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

In that case, I and my spartan friends should now lower our spears too, but perhaps keep them to hand just in case one day, someone—perhaps the Leader of the Opposition—should try and take us back in.

My colleagues in the European Research Group have fought long and hard for this day and we have sometimes been lampooned or even vilified by the remain-dominated electronic media for our trouble, when all we have ever wanted is one thing: to live in a free country that elects its own Government and makes its own laws here in Parliament, and then lives under them in peace. Now, thanks to the Prime Minister, who kept his word to the country and got Brexit done, who did exactly what it said on the tin, as our star chamber has verified, we can do that. What I call the battle for Brexit is now over. We won, but I suspect the battle for the Union is now about to begin.

We are about to write a new chapter in what Sir Winston Churchill called our “island story”, but now, after a truly epic struggle, we will do it as a free people. Despite all the brickbats we have endured for years—I think particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—it was always worth the fight. Mel Gibson once made a very entertaining film but this is cry freedom for real, and now, finally, it is true.

Ministerial Code

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady was herself a distinguished Minister and I know how high was the regard in which she was held by her civil servants. I completely agree with her that it is vital that all of us seek to uphold the independence of the civil service. It is absolutely vital that the civil service is able to offer candid advice to Ministers. I know myself, having worked with the Home Secretary and others, that we have benefited from that candid advice in seeking to implement Government policy. However, I think it is also important to acknowledge that Sir Philip, a distinguished public servant, has indicated that he may initiate legal proceedings against the Government, so it would be inappropriate for me to say more about the particular statements he made on Saturday.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I believe we have an excellent and dynamic Home Secretary who deserves our unwavering support. Does the Chancellor recall, just a few months ago, Labour MP after Labour MP going on the record publicly telling us about vicious bullying and antisemitism in the Labour party? Should not the Leader of the Opposition therefore remove the plank from his own eye?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, the Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job. Secondly, while the Labour party remains under investigation from the Equality and Human Rights Commission for some of the practices that have occurred under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is important that there is an appropriate sense of proportion and humility in his comments.